Proof theory is an area of logic that studies proof as formal mathematical objects. For questions asking how to write proofs or for checking an informal proof, please use the proof-writing or proof-strategy tags instead.

learn more… | top users | synonyms

5
votes
2answers
358 views

Who stole the axioms in Natural Deduction?

The study of Gentzen's sequent calculus give me the opportunity to propose some reflections about the concept of logical truth. I'll refer to the english edition of Gentzen's works : The collected ...
1
vote
0answers
29 views

Girard's System $F$ (also named Polymorphism)

I have been studying Girard's Polymorphism and a question came to my mind: why is it (also) called system $F$? Where does the $F$ come from? (i searched it online but didn't get any luck...)
12
votes
3answers
387 views

On Pudlak's “Life in an Inconsistent World”

In his Logical Foundation of Mathematics and Computational Complexity (2013), Pavel Pudlak invites the readers to ponder about fictitious people whose natural numbers are nonstandard. His exposition ...
1
vote
1answer
52 views

Enumeration of proofs

Is it possible to enumerate short proofs of short statements, so as to make sure that, say, Goldbach's conjecture doesn't have one of those? How hard would it be? Is it being done? It's seems likely ...
1
vote
1answer
71 views

“Measure” of induction for cut-elimination in sequent calculus

I'm not very familiar with proof thoery, so I'm in trouble understanding different versions of the proof of the Cut-elimination Theorem for sequent calculus. In Sara Negri & Jan von Plato, ...
0
votes
0answers
46 views

Proof of $(\forall x. \varepsilon(x)) \Rightarrow \bot $ in $\lambda\pi $ calculus $\equiv$

What is the right representation of the proof of $(\forall x. \varepsilon(x)) \Rightarrow \bot $ in simple type theory as a term of $\lambda\pi $ calculus $\equiv$? Note on notation: The epsilon ...
1
vote
2answers
65 views

Restrictive Rules for LK System

I have a question regarding the restrictive nature of $\forall(R)$ and $\exists(L)$ rules in sequent calculus LK. I don't really understand why the restrictions exists in the first place, so why: $$ ...
3
votes
1answer
68 views

A problem about sequent calculus for classical logic

In Sara Negri & Jan von Plato, Structural Proof Theory (2001), page 51, various properties of the system G3cp of classical propositional logic are showed. Theorem 3.1.1 [page 49] proves that all ...
7
votes
1answer
114 views

Proof-theoretic characterization of the primitive recursive functions?

The total recursive functions are exactly those number-theoretic functions that can be represented by a $\Sigma_1$ formula of first-order arithmetic. Is there a similar characterization of the ...
0
votes
1answer
47 views

Proofs with binary trees [duplicate]

Now I have a binary tree which is How would I go about proving binary tree with $n$ leaves has exactly $2 n - 1$ nodes ?
0
votes
2answers
53 views

Unique set of inference rules for a deductive system?

I have the impression that for a deduction system there are many sets of inference rules to describe it. Simple example, the inference rules for (classical or intuitionistic, this is not the matter) ...
0
votes
1answer
61 views

Is this deduction in normal form?

Definition: A deduction is in normal form if there is no formula which is a conclusion of an introduction rule and the main premise of the elimination rule of the same connective. So, in a natural ...
2
votes
2answers
79 views

Natural Deduction rules for $\lnot$ in classical and intuitionstic logic

Following the very useful answer by Peter Smith to my prevoius post , I'm still reflecting about the "imperfection" connected with the Intro- ans Elim-rules for $\lnot$ in Natural Deduction (I mean ...
1
vote
1answer
39 views

On provability within minimal logic

In its most naive form my question boils down to this: when is a proposition that is provable "by contradiction" also provable "directly"? IOW, is it possible to know, a priori, that a ...
0
votes
3answers
186 views

Using rules of inference (Leibniz) to prove theorems.

Leibniz: If $A \equiv B$ is a theorem, then so is $C[p:= A] \equiv C[p:= B]$. Note: p is "fresh" means p doesn't occur in $A, B, C$. I am trying to understand how to use Leibniz rule of inference for ...
5
votes
4answers
410 views

What is the “correct” reading of $\bot$?

I have some doubts about the "natural" interpretation of $\bot$ in Natural Deduction and sequent calculus. In Prawitz (1965) $\bot$ (falsehood or absurdity) is called a sentential constant [page 14] ...
1
vote
2answers
82 views

A question about consistent fragments of formalized mathematical theories with Natural Deduction

In Dag Prawitz, Natural Deduction A Proof-Theoretical Study (1965), we have the system I of intuitionistic (first-order) logic based on eleven introduction- and elimination-rules : the 3 couples for ...
3
votes
2answers
306 views

How to prove consistency of Natural Deduction systems

In Dag Prawitz, Natural Deduction A Proof-Theoretical Study (1965), we have the system I of intuitionistic (first-order) logic based on eleven introduction- and elimination-rules : the 3 couples for ...
0
votes
2answers
172 views

What are some good introductory books on mathematical proofs?

There was a time when I avoided math proofs, but now I am starting to enjoy them. I am taking Intro to Linear Algebra and am falling in love with proofs. Are there any introduction to mathematical ...
3
votes
0answers
47 views

Using an automatic tool for checking geometric conjectures

I do a lot of research about squares, and I thought of using some automatic tool for proving / disproving some geometric conjectures. As a simple example, consider the following Square coloring ...
0
votes
1answer
64 views

Prove by Hilbert deduction: ⊢∃x(AvB)→(∃xAv∃xB); ⊢(∃xAv∃xB)→∃x(AvB)

I'd really like your help proving: 1)⊢∃x(AvB)→(∃xAv∃xB) 2)⊢(∃xAv∃xB)→∃x(AvB) Our proof system contains next Hilbert's axioms: 1.A→(B→A) 2.(A→B)→((A→(B→X))→(A→X)) 3.(A&B)→A 4.(A&B)→B ...
3
votes
1answer
118 views

Non-self-referential undecidable sentences in arithmetic

Are there any known undecidable sentences for PA are neither "self-referential" (like a sentence equivalent to its own nonprovability) nor imply consistency of PA (like in the Paris Harrington ...
0
votes
1answer
109 views

Proof by contradiction: May I assume $P$ (true) in $\neg Q \land P \Rightarrow P \land \neg P$ to prove $Q$ by contradiction

Suppose I wish to do a proof by contradiction the statement $Q$. In proving $Q$ may I assume $\neg Q \land P$ (where $P$ is a statement known to be true) and show the implication $\neg Q \land P ...
3
votes
2answers
100 views

Probabilistic “proof” that a sentence is provable (proof “density”).

Is it possible to (or even useful) to calculate the probability that a certain statement is provable? I had this idea that any two statements say A and B could be compared to each other by comparing ...
95
votes
11answers
11k views

Do we know if there exist true mathematical statements that can not be proven?

Given the set of standard axioms (I'm not asking for proof of those), do we know for sure that a proof exists for all unproven theorems? For example, I believe the Goldbach Conjecture is not proven ...
1
vote
0answers
54 views

What is the proof-theoretic strength of the predicative second-order theory of real numbers?

The first-order theory of real numbers, AKA the theory of real closed fields, is obtained by added to the axioms for ordered fields an axiom schema of completeness, which states that for each formula ...
4
votes
2answers
145 views

About theorem's proof length in propositional calculus

In PC(propositional calculus) system, how long will a formula's proof be? That is to say if there exists a computable function $f$ such that for any formula $A$, if $\vdash_{\mathrm{PC}}A$ then $A$ ...
2
votes
1answer
69 views

Is it possible to prove $p\rightarrow\diamond (p\land q)$ in modal logic?

I need to prove $p\rightarrow\diamond (p\land q)$ in B axiomatic, which contains next conversion rules: 1.$(p\land q)\rightarrow(q\land p)$ 2.$(q\land p)\rightarrow p$ 3.$p\rightarrow(p\land p)$ ...
7
votes
4answers
173 views

How or why does intutionistic logic proof negations from within the theory, constructively?

I'm having a little of a cognitive dissonance why, in intuitionistic logic, it's possible to show stentences like $(\neg A \land \neg B) \implies \neg(A\lor B).$ In plain text: If 'A isn't true' as ...
0
votes
2answers
45 views

Why this first-order logic formula is not correct?

I'm studing computer science at university, in specific Artificial Intelligence. We are using Otter as Theorem prover. I'm having some problems formalizing this: "John, Mary and Derek are three ...
5
votes
2answers
107 views

Is every proof for natural numbers equivalent to an induction proof?

The other day I had the following idea: Suppose one could show that a theorem for natural numbers is not provable by induction for all $n$, in other words, there do not exist useful induction steps ...
2
votes
0answers
55 views

How much arithmetic can Predicative Second-Order EFA do?

As discussed in this MathOverflow question, I'm trying to find what the result would be of applying a Feferman-Scutte-like analysis to the predicativism of Edward Nelson and Charles Parsons, who ...
2
votes
2answers
125 views

How can we define infinitary proofs?

In the first order logic the usual notion of a formal proof for a sentence $\sigma$ from a theory $T$ is a "finite" sequence ($<\omega$ - sequeance) of sentences which each one of them is a valid ...
0
votes
1answer
69 views

Can necessity rule be derived from box introduction rule?

I need to find a proof of $\top \vdash \Box \top$ (where $\top$ is the truth constant and $\Box$ is the necessity modal operator) in the natural deduction system of IS4 modal logic. In the axiomatic ...
3
votes
1answer
112 views

Type Theory (Proof tree)

Suppose $B(x)$ set $(x:A)$ is a family of sets and $D$ is a set. Prove $(\Sigma x:A)B(x) \times D \to (\Sigma x:A)(B(x) \times D)$. Using the so called Curry-Howard correspondence one may ...
2
votes
2answers
78 views

Proofs with Induction Imply Proofs Without Induction?

Assume we can prove $\forall x P(x)$ in first order Peano Arithmetic (PA) using induction and modus ponens. Does this mean we can prove $\forall x P(x)$ from the other axioms of PA without using ...
4
votes
1answer
120 views

Curry-Howard Correspondence (Proof Theory)

As you all know, the Curry-Howard correspondance provides a link between type theory and predicate logic. Concepts featured in the former, such as $\Pi$-type and $\Sigma$-type can, by the ...
2
votes
1answer
67 views

Given a theorem can it always be reduced logically to the axioms?

It's probably a silly question but I’ve been carrying this one since infancy so i might as well ask it already. let ($p \implies q$) be a theorem where $p$ is the hypotheses and $q$ is the ...
8
votes
2answers
263 views

Minimal difference between classical and intuitionistic sequent calculus

Consider propositional logic with primitive connectives $\{{\to},{\land},{\lor},{\bot}\}$. We view $\neg \varphi$ as an abbreviation of $\varphi\to\bot$ and $\varphi\leftrightarrow\psi$ as an ...
2
votes
1answer
90 views

Deduction Theorem Subtlety and Predicate Proof

In standard, first-order predicate logic suppose that with a set of assumptions $\Gamma$ I can deduce $$\Gamma\cup\{A(a),B(m),\forall x\forall y\exists z[A(x)\land B(y)\rightarrow C(x,y,z)]\}\vdash ...
15
votes
2answers
247 views

How much math do we need to prove all simple numeric identities?

Consider real numeric expressions build only from integers, operators $+,-,\times,/$ and taking a positive expression to a power (no variables involved), e.g. $$\frac{2}{7},\ 2^{1/2},\ ...
0
votes
1answer
87 views

Unprovable unprovability of $\forall x\in X:P(x)$

Consider statements of the form $\forall x\in X:P(x)$. Is it possible that such a statement is proven to be unprovable? I think not, and here is my argument: if we proved that the statement is ...
2
votes
1answer
188 views

True and provably true sentences in a model. Are they the same thing?

In logic, it is said that each sentence in a (consistent) theory is either true or false in a given model. Checking the truth of a sentence in a finite model amounts essentially to finite enumeration ...
2
votes
1answer
98 views

Is the Church-Kleene Ordinal describable with Kleene's $O$?

Kleene's $O$ is an ordinal notation system that uses certain natural numbers to represent transfinite ordinals. It is a recursive notation system (although it's not decidable whether a number ...
4
votes
1answer
76 views

Is ordinal analysis a non-recursive project?

A recursive ordinal is an ordinal that is the order-type for some recursive relation (i.e. a recursive well-ordering). We can represent recursive ordinals as natural numbers using Kleene's $O$, an ...
5
votes
1answer
152 views

What is the proof-theoretic ordinal of the first-order theory of real closed fields?

I recently asked a question on MathOverflow, concerning a predicative second-order theory of real numbers. Now the standard way of developing predicativity in the case of second-order arithmetic is ...
1
vote
2answers
151 views

Simple proof theory - Propositional Logic

When addressing the questions, which are featured below, I use the following definition and two lemmas. Definition: $\phi$ is a tautology if $[[\phi]]_{v}=1$ for all valuations $v$. Moreover, ...
1
vote
1answer
89 views

Is the converse of the first Hilbert-Bernays Derivability Condition true?

The first Hilbert-Bernays Derivability Condition is (⊢P) → (⊢◻P). What I'd like to know is, is the converse true? That is, is (⊢◻P) → (⊢P) valid? I know from Löb's Theorem that ⊢(◻P → P) is not valid ...
2
votes
0answers
164 views

Difference between soundness and correctness

Is there any actual semantic difference between soundness and correctness? Can I use these words interchangeably when talking about formal reasoning, proof, logics, etc.? Otherwise, is there a ...
0
votes
3answers
230 views

Qns on Propositional Logic - Inference Rules + Logical Equivalence

Have been working on this for the past 2 hours and still not getting any where. Any help will be much appreciated! Consider the following argument 1) p 2) p v q 3) q → (r → s) 4) t → r ∴¬s → ¬t ...